Android Wear, Auto, and TV save you from skins, and OEMs from themselves

For Android's second act, customizability takes a back seat to consistency.

Enlarge / Two watches and two OEMs, but one operating system and one interface.

Andrew Cunningham

Our full Android Wear hardware and software reviews won't run until next week, but now that we've spent a couple of days with Samsung's Gear Live and LG's G Watch we have a better idea of how these watches are going to look and act.

One thing about both of them sticks out: their software behaves pretty much the same way no matter which device you have. There are small differences that Google has outlined here, but interacting with each watch is exactly the same, and digging down into the settings shows that they're both running the exact same Android versions and build numbers. This would be unusual for Android phones or tablets, which generally come with OEM-controlled UI skins, hardware and software flourishes, and pre-installed apps.

Talking with Google engineering director David Burke confirmed that all of the new Android initiatives announced at the keynote this week—Android Wear, Android Auto, and Android TV—will have user interfaces and underlying software that is controlled by Google, not by the OEMs.

"The UI is more part of the product in this case," Burke said to Ars of Android TV in particular. "We want to just have a very consistent user experience, so if you have one TV in one room and another TV in another room and they both say Android TV, we want them to work the same and look the same... The device manufacturers can brand it, and they might have services that they want to include with it, but otherwise it should be the same."

Burke also told us that Google would be able to manage software updates for these various products directly. With Android TV, the goal is to make those updates automatic and seamless, "more like Chrome on the desktop," and the plan is to do the same for Android Wear and Auto. A little over a year after Sundar Pichai took over as the head of Android, his influence on the operating system's direction is obvious.

For Android enthusiasts and others who prefer Google's (increasingly confident and distinct) aesthetic vision for the operating system, this is good news. You'll be able to pay more attention to picking the hardware you want, without having to worry about oddball software choices. The flipside of this is that the Wear, Auto, and TV components probably won't be things that people can download source code for and build on top of. If you want to build an Android watch or a set-top box of your own design, you'll have to do what Samsung did with the first Galaxy Gear or what Amazon did with the Fire TV—take the standard Android Open Source Project code and do all the UI work and form-factor-specific optimization yourself.

You just don't need UI skins anymore

This strategy is very different from the one Google used to spread Android to phones and, later, tablets. Earlier in its life, Android was a playground for OEMs. They could buy into an ecosystem that they benefited from—it had an app store and big chunks of its code were developed by Google—while still making and selling their own hardware.

Further Reading

And yet as Android grew, this freedom became a double-edged sword. OEMs took the Android code and piled new features, skins, and apps on top of it, and cellular carriers added even more. At first this was done out of necessity—as more OEMs rushed to release Android handsets, they needed to find an obvious way to differentiate their phone from the phone sitting next to it, made by a different company but running the same software. And yet, as anyone with a bloatware-packed Windows laptop can tell you, hardware makers often aren't great at making compelling, well-designed software.

Earlier Android versions also weren't really finished, at least not for an OEM who wanted its Android phone to match or beat the iPhone's list of features. Google didn't offer movie or music stores to compete with iTunes before 2011 or so. Google's standard Android UI was a little clunky and a little homely and didn't really settle down until the Ice Cream Sandwich and Jelly Bean era. The OS was missing things under the hood, too—if you wanted to support Bluetooth 4.0 (completed in 2010 and implemented first by Apple in the iPhone 4S in 2011), for example, you had to build in support yourself until Android 4.3 rolled around in mid-2013.

Google has worked hard in the last year to combat the worst of these problems. Android as provided by Google is substantially feature-complete at this point—it will add support for new APIs and technologies as they're released, but it's not playing catch-up anymore. Many of the applications that would have been updated along with Android in 2011 are now updated independently via the Google Play store, and users can download (and sideload) Google's keyboard and launcher and apps to work around many OEM customizations.

Enlarge/ Android version distribution among active users as of this writing. This is what it looks like when OEMs are in charge of their own updates.

Andrew Cunningham

That being said, Google is going to be dealing with the aftermath of Android's early marketshare-at-any-cost, make-it-look-however-you-want strategy on phones and tablets for years to come—in 2014, more than 15 percent of active devices run an operating system introduced in 2010. Forty-eight percent run an OS released in 2012. Only 24 percent are running a version that can work with those shiny new smartwatches.

The new Android projects Google talked about at I/O this year circumvent the problem entirely by not offering that kind of freedom to OEMs in the first place. That might make it more difficult for them to differentiate their products from one another, but it saves them a ton of development work and gives users more consistent, more secure devices that all pick up new features at the same time.

Google should deny the OEMs the right to use Google services, including the play store, unless the OEMs let Google manage updates. The OEMs can brand the devices with custom launchers and lock screens - as apps - if they want to, both are supported out of the box in Android, and also include apps with special features, but it should all be apps, so the user can easily choose to use other apps, including launcher and lock screen. They should not be allowed to change the system theme itself.

The OEMs should get Google updates ahead of users, so they can make sure their apps work with the new version. I've done some Android development, and have never seen an app break on a new Android version. It isn't like 4.2 to 4.3 requires a complete rewrite of apps. Of course there's drivers, but does Android really change so much between each version that drivers must be substantially updated ever time? I doubt it. If so, they write crappy drivers.

Google should deny the OEMs the right to use Google services, including the play store, unless the OEMs let Google manage updates. The OEMs can brand the devices with custom launchers and lock screens - as apps - if they want to, both are supported out of the box in Android, and also include apps with special features, but it should all be apps, so the user can easily choose to use other apps, including launcher and lock screen. They should not be allowed to change the system theme itself.

The OEMs should get Google updates ahead of users, so they can make sure their apps work with the new version. I've done some Android development, and have never seen an app break on a new Android version. It isn't like 4.2 to 4.3 requires a complete rewrite of apps. Of course there's drivers, but does Android really change so much between each version that drivers must be substantially updated ever time? I doubt it. If so, they write crappy drivers.

Hopefully the developer preview of L will help manufacturers get their devices updated on time. If they don't, they're throwing away their potential.

Google should deny the OEMs the right to use Google services, including the play store, unless the OEMs let Google manage updates. The OEMs can brand the devices with custom launchers and lock screens - as apps - if they want to, both are supported out of the box in Android, and also include apps with special features, but it should all be apps, so the user can easily choose to use other apps, including launcher and lock screen. They should not be allowed to change the system theme itself.

Amen. Windows bloatware can be super annoying, but it's rare to find something you can't easily uninstall. No reason that shouldn't apply to Android.

It feels like there's an odd dichotomy to the freedom of Android. On the one hand, almost anyone can build an Android device and skin it how they like. They use the appeal of "open" and "customization" to bring in folks who want to take more control... but then lock their customers into proprietary interfaces and make it difficult to experience the freedom that Android is supposed to offer.

It seems like Google is tired of having to deal with every two-bit UI designer from hardware companies mucking up their efforts. The message is now "differentiate yourself with amazing hardware... and if you write great software, put it on the Play store." It's a strategy that should raise the bar for the Android experience, making a viable choice for anyone who has looked at TouchWiz (even the name is horrible) or Sense and said "no thank you"

It feels like there's an odd dichotomy to the freedom of Android. On the one hand, almost anyone can build an Android device and skin it how they like. They use the appeal of "open" and "customization" to bring in folks who want to take more control... but then lock their customers into proprietary interfaces and make it difficult to experience the freedom that Android is supposed to offer.

It really throws words like "open" and "customization" into the spotlight and makes you wonder who benefits? In some ways, when Google says "open" and "customization", they aren't talking to the end-users, even though end-users hear those words. Those are words for the people that actually use Android for profit. It is the classic, confusing question of "who's the customer?"

Lovely interface... I still wouldn't be caught dead wearing one of the butt ugly watches.

Well at least the expensive but really niche and specific gadgets have come back into vogue for gadget lovers. For a while all they had to buy was smartphones, which everyone else had too, and that's not cool

Nice to see Google using its power for good though. My mom, whom I set up with an Android phone recently, wants to move back to Windows Phone after getting annoyed with Android's admittedly messy interface. Not to mention I couldn't root the damned thing nor did it have an upgrade beyond Ice Cream Sandwich, mostly because LG et. al. think hating their customers for no reason is a good business practice.

Hopefully the developer preview of L will help manufacturers get their devices updated on time. If they don't, they're throwing away their potential.

OEMs have had early access through the Platform Development Kit for a couple years now. The only difference is that now average developers also have early access. The developer preview should have no impact on OEMs.

It feels like there's an odd dichotomy to the freedom of Android. On the one hand, almost anyone can build an Android device and skin it how they like. They use the appeal of "open" and "customization" to bring in folks who want to take more control... but then lock their customers into proprietary interfaces and make it difficult to experience the freedom that Android is supposed to offer.

It really throws words like "open" and "customization" into the spotlight and makes you wonder who benefits? In some ways, when Google says "open" and "customization", they aren't talking to the end-users, even though end-users hear those words. Those are words for the people that actually use Android for profit. It is the classic, confusing question of "who's the customer?"

Unfortunately the way it's worked out is open for the carriers, less so for end users.

I have nothing against preventing the mess that is android versions. But I worry about how open it is going to be. Something that I wear around my wrist most of the time (if I ever were to use one, which I currently doubt) has better be in MY control. (That is why I'm a big supporter of the GPL, its purpose is to give the user the control of his machine). Android is becoming more and more closed and that is very bad.

Actually, I think a hybrid approach is what's best for the end user. If you just give companies the source code and say 'do what you want', then you end up with a clusterfuck like Linux on the desktop, and it's 9,000 distros, desktop environments, package managers, etc. This is not a good environment across the board, because instead of a thriving platform, you end up with a bunch of little 'islands' which, even though they may *technically* be compatible with each other, may or may not play well with each other.

IMO, it's better to have the system look, work, and act the same way out of the box with sensible defaults for the tech tards, but make it open-ended enough so that end users can customize the shit out of it if they want. If you have to have the source code in order to get the functionality you need out of a piece of software, then you're probably using the wrong software. And, as we have seen with Android, that's not really maintainable anyway, because you have to update your source code every time a new version is released. Best to make it customizable in all the ways people want, without needing the source code to make these changes.

Actually, I think a hybrid approach is what's best for the end user. If you just give companies the source code and say 'do what you want', then you end up with a clusterfuck like Linux on the desktop, and it's 9,000 distros, desktop environments, package managers, etc. This is not a good environment across the board, because instead of a thriving platform, you end up with a bunch of little 'islands' which, even though they may *technically* be compatible with each other, may or may not play well with each other.

IMO, it's better to have the system look, work, and act the same way out of the box with sensible defaults for the tech tards, but make it open-ended enough so that end users can customize the shit out of it if they want. If you have to have the source code in order to get the functionality you need out of a piece of software, then you're probably using the wrong software. And, as we have seen with Android, that's not really maintainable anyway, because you have to update your source code every time a new version is released. Best to make it customizable in all the ways people want, without needing the source code to make these changes.

No, source code is essential.

Having thousand of linux distributions is not a problem, just a handful are major, and they are all well updated. Steam targets ubuntu, and it's fine, the smaller distro will make sure it works for them.

Actually I think the problem of android, is that it's not easy enough to change your "distribution", if it was dead simple, like launching something that let you chose between the major distro, or type a link to your custom one, download it, install it, and you are set. Then things would be fine. Your OEM distro is not updated, change it, use google's. Of course that would require 100% support of the hardware by all distros, which is probably the problem, OEM want to use their own hardware and maybe don't want to share its code (maybe I don't much about phones). I guess there is also the problem of operator locks, that just shouldn't exist.

A perfect example of what happens when you are not in control is gnome 3, I hate it, I've been using gnome 2 for a very long time (with a giant 8x3 pager on the side), and I can't use gnome 3 (I've tried, it's just a mess). If it was closed source I would be SOL, but it's not, and MATE has emerged as a fork of gnome 2, and I'm happy. Hell if I had to, I could code my giant pager myself.On the other hand you have websites like google mail, twitter, ... and countless others, if they one day change them, you can't do much about it (a little thanks to things like css or greasemonkey). Other example: windows 8, don't want to use that piece of shit ? good luck if you depend on windows.

Google should deny the OEMs the right to use Google services, including the play store, unless the OEMs let Google manage updates. The OEMs can brand the devices with custom launchers and lock screens - as apps - if they want to, both are supported out of the box in Android, and also include apps with special features, but it should all be apps, so the user can easily choose to use other apps, including launcher and lock screen. They should not be allowed to change the system theme itself.

The OEMs should get Google updates ahead of users, so they can make sure their apps work with the new version. I've done some Android development, and have never seen an app break on a new Android version. It isn't like 4.2 to 4.3 requires a complete rewrite of apps. Of course there's drivers, but does Android really change so much between each version that drivers must be substantially updated ever time? I doubt it. If so, they write crappy drivers.

Meh. That's hardware developers in general, I think, as they usually assume a computer engineer has had sufficient training writing software. On todays devices, 1 year of coursework or equivalent training is just not enough.

So if Google is going to dictate the UI, is this where Android's traditional defenders will swoop in and complain that no one has "freedom" with this software? Haven't we been told for years that this "freedom" was the great thing about Android? Or have they changed their tune now that Google has seen the value in having a unified UI?

So if Google is going to dictate the UI, is this where Android's traditional defenders will swoop in and complain that no one has "freedom" with this software? Haven't we been told for years that this "freedom" was the great thing about Android? Or have they changed their tune now that Google has seen the value in having a unified UI?

i expect if they really force the issue, people will get more motivated to start modding, running custom roms like cyanogenmod, or just not upgrading - just like what happened with windows 8. once ms realized their screwup they released an update to placate those of us who were having epileptic seizures or spontaneous motion sickness (or just flat out disgust) caused by the insanely disgusting and overly animated start screen.

thing is, most of us aren't absolutely married to android like people are to windows. some can jump ship from windows to mac or linux, but most can't. i expect a lot more people are able to bail and go to iOS or even winphone, since there's much less of a barrier to switching. this is a dangerous precedent for android if they force it on the phone itself. i think it makes some sense for wear and auto but the main device? be careful google.

that said, i won't miss touchwiz, motoblur, sense or any other crap... then again i installed nova launcher and got rid of it as soon as i got my phone. i didn't care for trebuchet in cyanogenmod either - too limited. went back to nova.

i'm not real worried. people are clever. they'll find a way. they found a way around motorola's locked bootloaders. this will probably be just another speedbump in android's evolution.

It feels like there's an odd dichotomy to the freedom of Android. On the one hand, almost anyone can build an Android device and skin it how they like. They use the appeal of "open" and "customization" to bring in folks who want to take more control... but then lock their customers into proprietary interfaces and make it difficult to experience the freedom that Android is supposed to offer.

It seems like Google is tired of having to deal with every two-bit UI designer from hardware companies mucking up their efforts. The message is now "differentiate yourself with amazing hardware... and if you write great software, put it on the Play store." It's a strategy that should raise the bar for the Android experience, making a viable choice for anyone who has looked at TouchWiz (even the name is horrible) or Sense and said "no thank you"

So if Google is going to dictate the UI, is this where Android's traditional defenders will swoop in and complain that no one has "freedom" with this software? Haven't we been told for years that this "freedom" was the great thing about Android? Or have they changed their tune now that Google has seen the value in having a unified UI?

People have complained about OEM skins for ages, largely because they're unremovable. End-user skinning is another matter.

So if Google is going to dictate the UI, is this where Android's traditional defenders will swoop in and complain that no one has "freedom" with this software? Haven't we been told for years that this "freedom" was the great thing about Android? Or have they changed their tune now that Google has seen the value in having a unified UI?

$50 says you'll have Android Wear 'launchers' available on the Play Store after a week

So if Google is going to dictate the UI, is this where Android's traditional defenders will swoop in and complain that no one has "freedom" with this software? Haven't we been told for years that this "freedom" was the great thing about Android? Or have they changed their tune now that Google has seen the value in having a unified UI?

It seems you love swooping in, trolling a Google thread and leaving right after one comment.

You already know the answer to your question, so stop being an ass about it.

It feels like there's an odd dichotomy to the freedom of Android. On the one hand, almost anyone can build an Android device and skin it how they like. They use the appeal of "open" and "customization" to bring in folks who want to take more control... but then lock their customers into proprietary interfaces and make it difficult to experience the freedom that Android is supposed to offer.

It seems like Google is tired of having to deal with every two-bit UI designer from hardware companies mucking up their efforts. The message is now "differentiate yourself with amazing hardware... and if you write great software, put it on the Play store." It's a strategy that should raise the bar for the Android experience, making a viable choice for anyone who has looked at TouchWiz (even the name is horrible) or Sense and said "no thank you"

Hardware alone won't help you differentiate much. Just look at HTC.

There is a lot of power management that can be done in hardware. The radio can always be made better. Basically I don't think HTC pushed the envelope.

I think this is good news (who in their right mind would want Samsung vomiting one of their custom interfaces into their car's dashboard?), but this line gave me pause:

Quote:

The device manufacturers can brand it, and they might have services that they want to include with it, but otherwise it should be the same.

The way I read it, that's a worrying amount of wiggle room for OEMs to carry on their love affair with crapware. Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile (and fill every inch of it with ugly billboards and roadside stands selling Value Added Service sandwiches made from repurposed roadkill).

So if Google is going to dictate the UI, is this where Android's traditional defenders will swoop in and complain that no one has "freedom" with this software? Haven't we been told for years that this "freedom" was the great thing about Android? Or have they changed their tune now that Google has seen the value in having a unified UI?

It seems you love swooping in, trolling a Google thread and leaving right after one comment.

You already know the answer to your question, so stop being an ass about it.

If I make a point, I see no reason to stick around and argue with people who are busy confirming my point. I'm making a valid point about the hypocrisy of Android fans who criticize Apple's control over the UI and now will be perfectly happy with this. To attack me instead of addressing my point just says that you can't really disagree with what I'm saying but it irritates you to have it pointed out. Thanks for helping make my point.

So if Google is going to dictate the UI, is this where Android's traditional defenders will swoop in and complain that no one has "freedom" with this software? Haven't we been told for years that this "freedom" was the great thing about Android? Or have they changed their tune now that Google has seen the value in having a unified UI?

It seems you love swooping in, trolling a Google thread and leaving right after one comment.

You already know the answer to your question, so stop being an ass about it.

If I make a point, I see no reason to stick around and argue with people who are busy confirming my point. I'm making a valid point about the hypocrisy of Android fans who criticize Apple's control over the UI and now will be perfectly happy with this. To attack me instead of addressing my point just says that you can't really disagree with what I'm saying but it irritates you to have it pointed out. Thanks for helping make my point.

Well it seems you actually didn't know the real answer to your question - if you build an android wear watch, you have to use their UI guidelines. No one however at google will force you to do so just as Amazon isn't forced to when they built fireOS. Android has always had a set of guidelines to follow, and if you didn't, you could use AOSP on your own.

But yesterday you said this, and haven't bothered to respond to it, so don't feel like I'm not justified in my comment about you:

"...but if Google simply decides not to submit a device for certification so it can be updated, well, that's perfectly acceptable to quite a lot of them...."

Your comment makes no sense because this statement flat out isn't true.

It feels like there's an odd dichotomy to the freedom of Android. On the one hand, almost anyone can build an Android device and skin it how they like. They use the appeal of "open" and "customization" to bring in folks who want to take more control... but then lock their customers into proprietary interfaces and make it difficult to experience the freedom that Android is supposed to offer.

It seems like Google is tired of having to deal with every two-bit UI designer from hardware companies mucking up their efforts. The message is now "differentiate yourself with amazing hardware... and if you write great software, put it on the Play store." It's a strategy that should raise the bar for the Android experience, making a viable choice for anyone who has looked at TouchWiz (even the name is horrible) or Sense and said "no thank you"

Funny how Google and Microsoft move ever closer to Apple model of being less open.

Open is great for power users who desire options but it creates chaos in the consumer market.

It feels like there's an odd dichotomy to the freedom of Android. On the one hand, almost anyone can build an Android device and skin it how they like. They use the appeal of "open" and "customization" to bring in folks who want to take more control... but then lock their customers into proprietary interfaces and make it difficult to experience the freedom that Android is supposed to offer.

It seems like Google is tired of having to deal with every two-bit UI designer from hardware companies mucking up their efforts. The message is now "differentiate yourself with amazing hardware... and if you write great software, put it on the Play store." It's a strategy that should raise the bar for the Android experience, making a viable choice for anyone who has looked at TouchWiz (even the name is horrible) or Sense and said "no thank you"

Funny how Google and Microsoft move ever closer to Apple model of being less open.

Open is great for power users who desire options but it creates chaos in the consumer market.

Having OEM guidelines is slightly, ever so slightly, different than the Apple model

So if Google is going to dictate the UI, is this where Android's traditional defenders will swoop in and complain that no one has "freedom" with this software? Haven't we been told for years that this "freedom" was the great thing about Android? Or have they changed their tune now that Google has seen the value in having a unified UI?

Reality has set it.

Just like it did when Linux users finally realized they were never going to take over the desktop.

Open has its advantages for those who have the time, skills and will to take advantage of it.

It feels like there's an odd dichotomy to the freedom of Android. On the one hand, almost anyone can build an Android device and skin it how they like. They use the appeal of "open" and "customization" to bring in folks who want to take more control... but then lock their customers into proprietary interfaces and make it difficult to experience the freedom that Android is supposed to offer.

It seems like Google is tired of having to deal with every two-bit UI designer from hardware companies mucking up their efforts. The message is now "differentiate yourself with amazing hardware... and if you write great software, put it on the Play store." It's a strategy that should raise the bar for the Android experience, making a viable choice for anyone who has looked at TouchWiz (even the name is horrible) or Sense and said "no thank you"

Funny how Google and Microsoft move ever closer to Apple model of being less open.

Open is great for power users who desire options but it creates chaos in the consumer market.

Having OEM guidelines is slightly, ever so slightly, different than the Apple model

Andrew Cunningham / Andrew has a B.A. in Classics from Kenyon College and has over five years of experience in IT. His work has appeared on Charge Shot!!! and AnandTech, and he records a weekly book podcast called Overdue.